Don't vote for women because they're women
THE EDITOR, Sir:
In an article published on Thursday, February 4, 2015 (Gleaner, 'Is It Hillary's time?'), the writer, George Garwood, makes the case that the United States is ready for a female president. The writer goes further to say that Hillary Clinton will do better in the presidential elections than any other candidate.
From how the writer presents the information, you would believe that Hillary Clinton is already the Democratic candidate. However, she is not the party nominee for the presidential elections. That is yet to be decided by the people, and pretending that it is forgone conclusion is not only undemocratic, it's naive.
The writer seems to be of the view that Hillary Clinton is the ideal candidate to contest the presidency, but there are numerous problems with this statement. First, the writer says Hillary Clinton has been around politics a long time, so she must make a fine president. That's like saying if I spend a lot of time in the kitchen, I will make a good chef. Absurd! You have to look at her record in its entirety, offices she has held, and what her performance was like.
On examination, the claim that Ms Clinton is better than other Democratic candidates when running against Republicans holds no water. Three polls conducted on the campaign showed the opposite.
While applauding women for stepping up for leadership roles, let us not just vote for them just because they are women. We should treat them just like we treat any candidate.